Alex Vu

Professor Rourke
MANF 3000-03
25 June 2019
Quality Engineering Report I - Process Comparison

When analyzing two different methods of manufacturing, various factors must be taken
into consideration. One method is qualitatively deriving the quality of manufacture via
histograms, before any statistical calculations are done. The two systems are labeled as “N5” and
“N7” for measuring a shaft diameter in inches. Each measurement is grouped for ease of analysis
rather than plotting all values. A normal curve is imposed over the groups for reference, although
not to an accurate scale.

Through the histograms, we can see that N7 has a generally tighter grouping than N5,
with the skewness minutely shifted to the right. With the tolerances listed as 0.258 ± 0.005
inches, N5 seems to have a relatively more even distribution within the tolerances than N7.
Furthermore, the ungrouped data is listed below in thousandths of an inch per subgroup:
N5 subgroup
N7 subgroup
a b c d e f
a b c d e f
12 10 12 11 15 7 1 6 4 3 5 5 5 1
13 6 10 9 10 10 2 7 6 7 3 4 5 2
12 6 7 8 13 5 3 7 7 6 8 6 7 3
11 16 12 11 10 12 4 8 10 8 6 7 8 4
9 8 7 9 6 10 5 10 12 7 7 8 9 5
7 13 10 10 9 8 6 10 8 8 6 8 8 6
7 6 11 9 9 11 7 14 8 9 12 10 11 7
8 7 10 10 11 9 8 9 13 7 11 9 10 8
11 10 12 10 15 6 9 12 10 13 13 11 12 9
6 9 12 8 4 10 10 13 15 12 17 13 14 10

The tables are then converted into the nominal inch values, with nonconforming measurements
highlighted.
 N5 subgroup
a b c d e f
0.262 0.260 0.262 0.261 0.265 0.257 1
0.263 0.256 0.260 0.259 0.260 0.260 2
0.262 0.256 0.257 0.258 0.263 0.255 3
0.261 0.266 0.262 0.261 0.260 0.262 4
0.259 0.258 0.257 0.259 0.256 0.260 5
0.257 0.263 0.260 0.260 0.259 0.258 6
0.257 0.256 0.261 0.259 0.259 0.261 7
0.258 0.257 0.260 0.260 0.261 0.259 8
0.261 0.260 0.262 0.260 0.265 0.256 9
0.256 0.259 0.262 0.258 0.254 0.260 10

N7 subgroup
a b c d e f
0.256 0.254 0.253 0.255 0.255 0.255 1
0.257 0.256 0.257 0.253 0.254 0.255 2
0.257 0.257 0.256 0.258 0.256 0.257 3
0.258 0.260 0.258 0.256 0.257 0.258 4
0.260 0.262 0.257 0.257 0.258 0.259 5
0.260 0.258 0.258 0.256 0.258 0.258 6
0.264 0.258 0.259 0.262 0.260 0.261 7
0.259 0.263 0.257 0.261 0.259 0.260 8
0.262 0.260 0.263 0.263 0.261 0.262 9
0.263 0.265 0.262 0.267 0.263 0.264 10

Once the nominal measurements are determined, the data is plotted with tolerances imposed over
the data.

With the complete data set, we can see that N7 has an inconsistent process – shaft
diameters gradually increasing – with some values exceeding the specified limits. N5 is shown to
have a process that is more varied, but has fewer nonconformities and demonstrates a process
that seems to oscillate around the specified 0.258 inches.
 To compare the process precision and accuracy, averages for each subgroup is calculated
and plotted. The blue line indicates the average per subgroup, red line indicating the average of
all subgroup averages, green line being the upper limit, and purple line being the lower limit.

From the plots of central tendency, we are shown that both process are comparatively accurate –
both have a vast majority of measurements within limits, and demonstrate few errors. They differ
in the precision of the process: N5 averages are shown to have a grouping that revolves around a
center value, while staying within limits. On the other hand, N7 generally stays within limits, but
skews upward until it passes the upper limit, conveying a lower general precision, but (from the
full data) high subgroup precision.
In addition, N5 and N7 can be compared by the process capabilities (Cp and Cpk). The
process capabilities entail how many normal curves from the given data can fit within the
tolerance specifications, demonstrating overall process precision.

N5 N7
STDEV 2.52641413 STDEV 3.12503107
AVG 9.58333333 AVG 8.78333333
CP 0.65969654 CP 0.53332803
CPK 0.45079264 CPK 0.44977331

As shown from the Cp and Cpk index, both processes for N5 and N7 barely fit half of a normal
distribution within limits, indicating a low precision for both. Even when comparing
nonconformities, both N5 and N7 exhibit 3 and 4 out of 60 total measurements respectively. This
results in a 5% and 6.67% error in parts for each. Despite lacking overall precision, both do
demonstrate moderate accuracy.
Both processes, although similar in general output, differ in the reliability of the process.
N7 is shown to be less reliable and less stable due to the increasing average per subgroup in
conjunction with the low Cp and Cpk values. N5 seems to be a more reliable and more stable
process than N7 due to the higher stability as shown in the oscillating average per subgroup.
However, N5 also demonstrates low Cp and Cpk values due to its overall variety of
measurements, shown in the full data plot of individuals.